The old saying "every change will upset someone/can't please 'em all chuckle chuckle" is a cop-out.
I've had managers say exactly this about flawed interfaces I've been asked to build, with marketing directives dictating crucial layout choices and ultimately problematic usability. Warned against but overridden with "can't please em all". Yet the complaints came rolling in big time over an extended period due these change to the tv guide I made.
The problem with marketing depts making interface decisions is that their priorities are with things like "aligning with the tone of the campaign" or "blatantly copying a competitor for lack of confidence in one's own original ideas".
We're talking about a feature that has been in Google search for many years, then suddenly gone in the blink of an eye, without explanation.
"Sinister" actions are done quietly, you hope no-one will notice. If their reasons are in the interests of users, they'd blog or post about it somewhere to keep people informed about their product. They failed to mention it.
Google has already made it clear they are directing traffic to G+ to sustain their bank balance and pursuit of making a Google spacecraft or whatever. This latest move, plundering useful things in search, is the same bad User Interface behaviour as forcing people to sign up to G+ to leave a rating out of five for an app. They're forcing together two unrelated systems or services with bad welds, or removing useful components leaving empty space.
I've had managers say exactly this about flawed interfaces I've been asked to build, with marketing directives dictating crucial layout choices and ultimately problematic usability. Warned against but overridden with "can't please em all". Yet the complaints came rolling in big time over an extended period due these change to the tv guide I made.
The problem with marketing depts making interface decisions is that their priorities are with things like "aligning with the tone of the campaign" or "blatantly copying a competitor for lack of confidence in one's own original ideas".
We're talking about a feature that has been in Google search for many years, then suddenly gone in the blink of an eye, without explanation.
"Sinister" actions are done quietly, you hope no-one will notice. If their reasons are in the interests of users, they'd blog or post about it somewhere to keep people informed about their product. They failed to mention it.
Google has already made it clear they are directing traffic to G+ to sustain their bank balance and pursuit of making a Google spacecraft or whatever. This latest move, plundering useful things in search, is the same bad User Interface behaviour as forcing people to sign up to G+ to leave a rating out of five for an app. They're forcing together two unrelated systems or services with bad welds, or removing useful components leaving empty space.